wouldnt be surprised, if we do pay hall off, if the shock departure was l'estrange. he's halls best mate and it might unsettle him if hall went back to Oz.

As much as I do like Heath, I wouldn't keep Hall just to keep him happy. Hall was a complete waste of money last year. You'd hope that if he's staying, then he'll look fitter and get a run in his preferred position next season, but I certainly wouldn't be crying if he left. If we had to lose L'Estrange in order to get Hall off our books, right now I'd take that.

All sounds a bit too good to be true to me! How about throw this into the mix.. we lose Hall to bring in Monaghan and Widdop in to play 6?

I'd take that. but what motivation would widdop have to come play 6 for us when he looks set to be melbournes starting half next season?

after worrincey deal I suppose anything is possible but I think that might be a stretch too far.

mixed feeling about that statement. If we had to lose l'estrange as a consequence of losing hall to bring someone better in on the quota spot I could reluctantly go along with it. If it was a case of losing l'estrange purely to get hall off the books then I'd prefer us to hang onto both (particulary as i think hall will be a lot better this year in the 2nd row).

Whilst I wouldnt be unhappy with a diskin/godwin pairing I think diskin/l'estrange is significantly stronger.

If our pairing was to be Disco/L'estrange, what would you then do with Godwin?

In a very hypothetical situation, imagine if Disco and Heath remained fit all season and neither were switched about positionally (e.g. Heath doesn't play scrum half a all), would that mean Godwin potentially misses all season?

That was my first thought when we signed Diskin, why keep 3 established hookers when in usual circumstances, 2 established and 1 youngster would suffice?

Anything we pay him would count on the cap.

However, a release is unlikely to mean paying off his whole contract and he's likely to find a team elsewhere.

Saints played with 3 hookers on the field at times this season. Maybe it's Potter's way?

Again I point out that it's all about competition. 2 established and 1 youngster still means the 2 established hookers are guaranteed a spot every week. With the 3 we have at the moment, they're not. The fact they have to play for their place is the most important thing to the side, not if someone starts sulking because he's the one being left out.

If any such deed was contracted for before 1/12, any payments would fall into the 2010 salary cap year. When we had plenty of headroom. Potential for acrtivity this next two weeks or so?

"If it were done when 'tis done, then 'twere well it were done quickly..."

Exactly my thinking on it.

It's on record that we did not spend the cap last year. Yes that was due to the money being invested elsewhere, but it does mean there was room. If for example some money now became available, we could spend that on last year's cap as long as it's before the new season officially begins. It means we could theoretically pay someone compensation to be released without it counting on next year's cap and without breaking this year's.

I also note the rumour is that we're paying him compensation to terminate the contract. Rather than just deciding we don't want him any more and asking him to just forget it. A certain Scrum Half and his agent would be better people if they understood that too.

don't get me wrong, I am all for competition but would it potentially reduce the motivation and chance of a player such as Andy O'Brien (who is apparently has a lot of potential) firstly making any appearances at all next season never mind giving him the chance to secure a regular squad place?

and secondly, given that we aren't the most financially supported club in the league (i.e.no rich sugar daddy), is it feasible to keep 3 established hookers on board when we need strength elsewhere?

Isnt Andy O'Brien the old City centre half, now at Leeds?

Only because everyone else was injured.

That sounds sensible, but the RFL does have rules in place to prevent the weighting or contracts in favour of one year over another.

I suppose it depends on whether we are paying off the contract to some degree (in which case I would assume it comes from the relevant year) or whether it is compensation for tearing the contract up, in which case I would assume that expenditure counts when it is made.

We'll want some guidance - our record on interpreting contracts and the salary cap is not without blemish.

No guidance needed - it transpires the Operational Rules are quite specific on this point (and may have changed since the previous iteration, which I was pretty familiar with). And in fact you make a fair point, as you will see from the folowing:

[i6.1.2

Where the proposed transaction is the termination of a Playing Contract with one of
the Club’s existing Players, as part of which the Club proposes to make a new
payment (in a lump sum or in instalments) to the Player that was not provided for in
his Playing Contract or other arrangements (and therefore was not previously
included in the calculation of his Salary Cap Value) (the “Termination Payment”),
then the information provided to the RSCM must include a proposed compromise
agreement between the Player and the Club (in the form of the RFL’s standard
compromise agreement as drafted from time to time) setting out full details of the
agreement reached, including full details of the Termination Payment. If termination
in such circumstances is approved by the RSCM, the Player’s original Salary Cap
Value shall thereafter be disregarded for purposes of calculating the Club’s
Aggregate First Tier Liability and/or Aggregate Second Tier Liability. However, save
where Clauses 6.1.3 or 6.1.4 applies, the Club shall retain a Salary Cap Value for
that Player for the remainder of the term of his old Playing Contract, being the
Gross value of the Termination Payment, spread on a pro rata basis over the
remaining term of the Playing Contract, notwithstanding that the Player may no
longer be registered to play with the Club.

Comment to Clause 6.1.2: For example, if a Player leaves after 6 months of a
1-year Playing Contract and accepts a Termination Payment with a Gross value of
£10,000, then the Salary Cap Value for that Player for the remainder of the Salary
Cap Year will be £10,000.

Alternatively, where a Player leaves after 6 months of a 2-year Playing Contract and
accepts a Termination Payment with a Gross value of £15,000, then the Salary Cap
Value for that Player for the remainder of the Salary Cap Year will be £5,000 and
the Salary Cap Value for that Player for the following Salary Cap Year will be
£10,000.[/i

So in fact the timing of the termination payment is probably not relevant. I should have checked the updated Operational Rules first.

It would seem that should we seek to reach an agreement with Hall (or any other player for that matter) then his termination payment counts for salary cap purposes over the whole life of his original contract.

And if a player wins a tribunal etc against you, you get stuck with his original contract value on the salary cap for the remainder of its original term, not just the compo payment - presumably as a punishment. (6.1.5)

None of this applies if the player retires (permanently) "disabled" (6.1.3) or has never played a relevant math (6.1.4).

Not a lot of people know that...I didn't till I just re-rad the Rules. Thanks for sowing the seed of doubt Stul...just as well you did!

Incidentally, the foregoing should shut up once and for all those who come on here stating we should sack so-and-so and such-and-such, notwithstanding they are under contract. Quite apart from potentially blowing current-year cap, taken to its logical conclusion you could have much of your salary cap taken up by players who you have sacked in previous years!

thanks for digging that out adey. was pretty sure any compo payment was spread out over remaining contract period and counted towards cap. Might not be that bad though. I doubt we'd pay anything like his full contract value, probably more like half or maybe less as i'm sure hall would get a club in Oz pretty easily even if it is on reduced terms to what he's on now. may just be a case of our compensation being enough to top any new deal he signs,either here or in NRL, so he doesnt lose out financially.

Certainly going to be an interesting week or two thats for sure.

I knew it counted on the cap...did not know it was spread over the remaining contract period. That will if anything be more relevant to clubs currently spending the cap, since getting shot of a player mid-term won't send them over the cap in that year.

Also interesting to see that the rules are very much weighted in favour of a club acting honourably when getting shot of a player - seems fair enough.

think way you described it originally was fine before wigan used contract tricks to stay up. Rules were amended specifically to prevent back end loading off contracts but also has side effect effect that you cant pay one off early either without it having consequences over the entire contract length.

Adam O'Brien is still only 17 and not ready for Super League unless we're really desperate. Don't confuse training with the first team as being ready for the first team. It's often designed to get them used to the full time top level training and get used to their teammates, rather than because they are expected to play. Even without 3 hookers, I wouldn't have expected to see O'Brien this year.

Bags and bags of potential, but lets not ruin him by throwing him in before he's ready.

Just checking back, and these provisions were in the 2009 edition too. I think I overlooked them because they are in the section dealing with ongoing assessment of a club's SC rather than individual players' salary cap values.

They certainly came in with the "live cap" provisions, which were introduced as much as anything after the scandal of how Bulls were in breach for TWO years because the alleged breach (which the club disputed) was not identified by the RFL until half way through the second year - when it was far too late to do anything about it. The general rules about contract-averaging certainly came in after the Pies' shenanigans, where the RFL had to use the "not in the spirit of..." argument in the absence of specific rulings?

There are still some discretionary areas in the provisions - like what happens if players are promised a bonus for finishing in the play-off positions or for scoring so many tries. In these cases, the RFL decides what an appropriate salary cap value should be, taking a range of factors into account including e.g where the club finished in previous seasons.





On that basis, we ought to be able to put our players on a huge bonus, yet still within the cap, to finish in the top 4, given we have not even managed the top 8 these last 2 years or the top 4 in the last 3...

You're thinking of Ces Podd, though they are similar.

Podd was a fullback. You might be thinking of Joe Cook.

Yup! I'll buy into that. If my cheering from the sidelines has any influence then I'll be there!

The only quibble is with the first sentence. I can think of (at least) one professional moaner who will always find something to moan about, there again, there are those who would find something to moan about if Ken Morrison decided to put £50 million quid into the club..............